Area(s) of Expertise: . Hair and Fiber

Examiner(s) & Symbols Reviewed Not Reviewed Reviewed Not Reviewed RQ X o oO a UL 0 x o ; o o o : Qo Materials Reviewed Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Michael Malone Testimony Date(s): § Unknown Pages: 69-80 Laboratory Report(s): ; - Laboratory Number: 20309089 Date: May 13, 1982 Laboratory Number: , , Date: _ Laboratory Number: — Date: Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ and unknown technician Laboratory Number:

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Review commenced at: 1:00 PM * (Time), 11/05/01 (Date) File #: 95-248383

Laboratory #(s): 20309089

ee TRS

Page 1 of

Initials: Suk ~“ CRM - 91 23

Was any other material reviewed? X Yes 0 No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: submitting agency letter dated 3-8-82

Results of Review .

File #: .. 95-248383 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q13, Q17-Q23. Q25, KI, K2,

K6, K7

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

| Note: Numbered comments are required below or on

additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the methads, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? OYes ONo XO Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in the bench notes? O Yes XONo_ O Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony: Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

oO Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? XO Yes ONo Unable to Determine . 4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? - O Yes ONo X Unable to Determine 5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? a3 XO Yes No ° GO Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 3 Initials: * Wi-

Comments

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable. Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-248383

#1: With microscopic hair comparison, one cannot determine from the notes that the examination was conducted

in an appropriate manner.

#2: Documentation is poor. The notes are not dated, are in pencil and not ink and abbreviations are used that are — difficult to interpret. Some of the recovered hair (from Q5, Q6, Q9, Q20, Q25) are marked "NSFC" (presumably

Not Suitable For Comparison) with no documented reason why they are not suitable. The examiner did not report

the presence of hair recovered from the QI bed spread that did not match victim or suspect.

#4: The notes on item Q25 indicate one hair "=K6(s) =K2(v)", while the report and transcript say this hair

matches the suspect (K6). This is probably nothing more than a failure to properly mark the examiner's

conclusion.

Review completed at: "2:00 PM (Time), 11/05/01 (Date) Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 1.00 hr.

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, dnbiasedls manner and that the results of my review - are fully documented on this report consisting of a total ges.

11/05/2001 f (Signature) (Date)

Page 3 of 3

. Initials: Se 4